2 ms·
Again, that's why you need the one-unit-that-loses-you-the-game-if-it-dies. > there's not much you can do; is that fun? since when is losing supposed to be f
by pdntspa 3y ago
Again, that's why you need the one-unit-that-loses-you-the-game-if-it-dies.
> there's not much you can do; is that fun?
since when is losing supposed to be fun? I don't want to give my opponent chances at a reversal. I want to win, reliably and assuredly.
I don't know what the 'indestructible' unit has to do with any of this, even the most impenetrable fortress has weaknesses. You have to declaw a turtle slowly and methodically, or just straight up overwhelm their defensive lines. A turtling player cannot be everywhere at once, they have weaknesses.
- Buttons840 3y agoI assume you're talking about competitive play, since you mentioned it, and lamented that competitive RTS play is ruined. > since when is losing supposed to be fun? I don't want to give my opponent chances at a reversal. I want to win, reliably and assuredly. This comment explains why this theoretical opponent of yours doesn't exist. You want to play against another human who you can defeat reliably, and who has no fun being defeated. Why would anyone ever want to be your opponent? It's not fun for them, and they have little chance of winning. This is why, as you observed, there's many tactical RTS games that people are playing, but nobody plays games like you imagine.